OT - Bank of America

Page 4 of 5  

top posting fixed
Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>
>> None of this would have worked if there also >> weren't massive opaque institutions who could manufacture >> the CDOs and >> other paper to keep the scam running as long as it did.

So in your Limbaugh is the only absolute truth world who created all of the CDOs and other financial instruments that played a huge part in scamming everyone and led to the collapse?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The biggest problem from the regulation standpoint was that the law making the changes in bank regulation never got around to appointing ONE lead agency. Thus, some regs that probably should have been put in place, no one thought they had the authority or that some other agency had it. In other areas, two or three different agencies thought they had authority and either squabbled over who should do it or else all the agencies came up with their own (often contradictory if not flat out mutually exclusive) regs. COngress is preparing, from everything I have seen, to compound the inefficiencies and pretty much fracture the regulation to an even greater degree. And don't EVEN get me started on current rumblings about trying to get the executive more in tune with the shareholders since the tax law changes that largely put us in this pay mess were instituted specifically to do that.

--
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Much the same with health care in NYS. They passed some kind of "universal insurance" thing that forced the companies to insure everyone. So, the insurance companies pulled out of NYS. Of course, it would never occur to legislators to return some freedoms to the citizens.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No they didn't! I live in NY and no insurance company is required to insure every/anyone. What NY did was to require that all insurance be an "HMO or all-inclusive" insurance. That means that I, as a self-employed person with no employees am not legally allowed to purchase JUST catastrophic health coverage. I MUST purchase full-boat HMO-style coverage or none at all. Since I only see a doctor when something (blood, bone, etc.) is sticking out, I refuse to pay 35% of my gross income for "insurance" which I will never, ever use. The cheapest insurance I can find is 35% of my gross income with a $2K yearly deductible. In the past 10 years I've spent a total of $1500 on healthcare. Since I pay 100% of my own healthcare costs I haven't cost the taxpayers a single penny, either.
I'm in my 50s, childfree (had a tubal at 25), and completely healthy, with no family history of ANYTHING except one grandfather who got lung cancer from smoking. I work out everyday, I am a non-smoker, am a healthy weight, etc., but because I'm still considered "childbearing" my insurance quotes are through the ceiling. Now the gubmint is going to tax me for not buying insurance. Great, fine, they'll ding me an extra $1k for not being insured. I would be insured if I could afford it, but now they'll take my fine money and use it for some breeder with too many kids. Perfect.
All I want to do is to buy into Medicare. I'm willing to pay THE TOTAL amount I cost (no gubmint subsidy) to be insured, but it's not allowed. What's up with that?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

. That makes a lot of sense. But; Not that way in Canada. No deduction of interest from income tax! Either federal or provincial). However if/when you sell your family home and make a profit there is no income tax payable. Also there is no income tax on 'winnings', prizes or gifts.
____________________
In the USA, there is no tax on the increased value of the home when you sell up to US $500,000 more than the purchase price. Also, you can subtract from your sales value all costs to improve your home during ownership. If you invest US $100,000 to improve your home, you can sell it for up to US $600,000 more than the purchase price without incurring tax on the gain. If you still sell for more, you only pay tax on the excess. Pretty hard to do, especially in this market, except for a tiny fraction of extremely high-priced homes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or those like me who have owned the house for 30 years.....
--
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is no tax on the increase as long as you take the money and reinvest in another home within a certain period of time. You only owe taxes if you decide not to reinvest in another single family home within that time frame AND the total profits from first home to last don't go over the $500,000, a little easier to do, but not much.
--
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is so old and forgotten that I can't remember when that was phased out. Now it is 500K more than basis (price paid plus improvements) is tax free. Real conditions apply, and you better consult qualified tax help.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It was phased out in '97, but since I sold a couple homes prior to '97, I still have to keep all of the information. You are right, I forgot about that change because it did not apply to me. Thanks for the clarification.
--
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

WRONG. That law was replaced with the $500K limit with no requirement to buy another house about 10 years ago or so.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It was replaced for those selling a house AFTER 1997, since I did same BEFORE and have a house that I bought prior to the change, I still have to keep the paperwork. That is where I got confused. You should keep records to prove your home's adjusted basis. Ordinarily, you must keep records for 3 years after the due date for filing your return for the tax year in which you sold your home. But if you sold a home before May 7, 1997, and postponed tax on any gain, the basis of that home affects the basis of the new home you bought. Keep records proving the basis of both homes as long as they are needed for tax purposes.
--
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:05:37 -0400, "Dimitrios Paskoudniakis"

That was in 1987.
--
I filter all messages from google groups.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stormin Mormon wrote:

From the time you signed the original application and accepted any amendments thereto it stated terms were changeable per the issuer's notifying of same...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:31:37 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Dump them. There are better banks with better rates, unless you got to have the marble counters and high ceilings. You got lucky on this one, the choices are great unlike medical insurance companies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They are? Far as I can tell banks are pretty much all the same, esp. when it comes to credit cards. I've gotten similar letters from all issuers of my credit cards. My credit is excellent, the only negative that I can think of is that I bought a house a few years back so I have more debt than I used to (but I also pay off my cards every month and have money in savings and pay all my bills on time.)
Jacking up the interest rates like this just encourages me to not use credit, at least anything other than just as a convenience that is essentially treated like a checking account and is paid off every month. I'll be damned if I'll pay more than 10% interest on anything.
nate
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They are? Far as I can tell banks are pretty much all the same, esp. when it comes to credit cards. I've gotten similar letters from all issuers of my credit cards. My credit is excellent, the only negative that I can think of is that I bought a house a few years back so I have more debt than I used to (but I also pay off my cards every month and have money in savings and pay all my bills on time.)
Jacking up the interest rates like this just encourages me to not use credit, at least anything other than just as a convenience that is essentially treated like a checking account and is paid off every month. I'll be damned if I'll pay more than 10% interest on anything.
nate
++++++
10%??? ---the prime is at 3.25%. Double that and you get 6.5%. Anything over that is bullshit. For that matter any interest is bs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Charge only the amount you can pay IN FULL each month, and no more. If you stop using credit your credit score decreases. If you stop using the card cancel the account. You are in control, not the bank. DiscoverCard has a cash-back program and you don't need a fancy bank for that one.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's what I'm doing. I still got rate increases on three different credit cards.
Only real impact on me is now instead of thinking that if there's something that I really want that I might be willing to carry a balance for a month or two, now it's simply not an option. I'm sure others feel like I do as well. This can only have a depressing effect on the economy. Something I would be willing to pay 8% interest on, I might not be willing to pay 18%.
nate
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote Re Re: OT - Bank of America:

Some others might feel as you do, but not many.
This is America. Most Americans are into conspicuous consumption and want to leave to bill to the grandchildren. It's supposed to be one of our countless rights.
The Chinese will educate us.
--
I filter all messages from google groups.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

i got an identical letter from chase in my last bill.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.